LA Metro ExpressLanes and Casual Carpoolers

[nickv]

LA Metro ExpressLanes and Casual Carpoolers[/b]
11/15/2012 | The Transit Coalition A Better Inland Empire - Transit Talking Points

LA Metro officials have to rethink their solutions toward casual carpoolers.



Los Angeles Metro officially launched the Metro ExpressLanes along the I-110 freeway, a pilot, one-year demonstration program. The program included the conversion of the carpool lanes into tolled express lanes (also known as HOT Lanes). Tolling along this corridor began late night on November 10, 2012 with the I-10 toll lanes set to launch later in 2013. All motorists including carpools are mandated to have a FasTrak transponder to enter the facility; HOV traffic must use the Metro ExpressLanes switchable FasTrak for toll free travel.

A Good Opening Weekend:
So far, the lanes are off to a good start, after opening to the public last weekend. Granted, using the lanes will cost as much as $15.40 per use, but these are mere grumblings that officials will take in stride, as the toll lanes intend to provide congestion relief and needed revenue. ( These letters to the LA Times, however, suggest differently.)

TTC's HOT Lane Position:
The Transit Coalition advocated for free non-transponder carpooling along the Metro ExpressLanes, but Metro never adopted the concept citing enforcement issues. Nevertheless, the Coalition's HOT lane campaign page illustrates how non-transponder HOT lanes can be enforced effectively by the CHP in lieu of an automated system. TTC's A Better Inland Empire HOT campaign page goes deeper into the facts.

Keep on Carpooling, Patriots:
Moving forward, several motorists are certainly disappointed, but should accept the situation and explore ridesharing alternatives offered by Metro and the private marketplace. Existing casual carpools should continue to share the ride as a means to reduce traffic. Carpooling is a patriotic act of combating congestion. Same holds true for using public transit. The truth is that the I-110 HOT lanes according to Metro will operate at speeds of at least 45 mph, even during peak hours. Metro claims the main freeway lanes will also benefit, but the verdict will be shown as commuters hit the road during the next few weeks. Let's hope we don't end up with a repeat of the I-85 toll lane disaster in Atlanta.

Seeking Solutions for Non-Registered Casual Carpoolers:
Meanwhile, officials have to rethink their solutions toward casual carpoolers, HOV traffic coming from the Inland Empire, taxi cab drivers, private sector bus lines, and all other HOV patrons who may be negated by the transponder policy to prevent a drop in the number of private carpools for the corridor. The good news for transit advocates and the public is that the responsibility and pressure are now on Metro and LA officials; if free mobility and ridesharing do not improve for both the HOT and regular lanes along the I-110 freeway over the course of the pilot period, the notion of converting carpool lanes into transponder-mandated HOT lanes as a means to reduce congestion will be struck down, thus opening the door for possible non-transponder carpooling in the Metro ExpressLanes.

However, Metro believes the agency has developed a sound toll lane facility and we should continue to explore ways to improve the corridor, especially for those who share the ride, either by public transit or private carpool. There are two ways the Metro ExpressLanes can affect I-110 mobility: First, as Metro claims, the express lanes will improve free mobility for both the HOT and regular lanes. Or secondly, the transponder-only HOT lanes could be a repeat of the I-85 toll lane blunder with worsened traffic congestion in the regular freeway lanes with the drop of casual carpools from the express lanes. If the former, stop-and-go traffic will be the thing of the past. If the latter, Metro made a big mistake of mandating FasTrak transponders for carpoolers.

Source Article

[Elson]

How about this for casual carpoolers -- Have a simple thing like a License Plate Registry -- They can register their car's license plate online and it goes into a registry. When a CHP officer inspects cars on the ExpressLanes, they can enter the license plate (all the CHP cruisers have computers that can search for license plates anyway) and see if it's in the registry. If they're compliant with the number of passengers, they're cool. If not, then they can get ticketed.

[rubbertoe]

At the risk of being permanently banned from the website, I don't see what the big deal is about requiring users of the Expresslanes to have transponders. If the issue is the $35 initial cost, and the $3 monthly service charge, then just waive that cost for those who can't afford it. There is already a plan in place that allows frequent corridor bus travelers to build up credits to use the Expresslanes occasionally free of charge.

I would imagine that requiring all Expresslanes users to have a transponder cuts down on the cost of policing the lanes. BTW, I used them for the first time solo on Sunday morning. First time ever entering on the Adams on ramp.

RT

[masonite]

Nov 16, 2012 7:38:52 GMT -8 rubbertoe said:

At the risk of being permanently banned from the website, I don't see what the big deal is about requiring users of the Expresslanes to have transponders. If the issue is the $35 initial cost, and the $3 monthly service charge, then just waive that cost for those who can't afford it. There is already a plan in place that allows frequent corridor bus travelers to build up credits to use the Expresslanes occasionally free of charge.

I would imagine that requiring all Expresslanes users to have a transponder cuts down on the cost of policing the lanes. BTW, I used them for the first time solo on Sunday morning. First time ever entering on the Adams on ramp.

RT

I agree. I have always been for the project. I do agree it is a hassle for the casual carpooler, but I don't find that especially troublesome. People just like to complain, especially about the government and especially about tolls and gas taxes.

I do think the project could better explain how the tolls will be used. I think that is a key selling point for keeping the lanes past the one year demonstration period.

[bzcat]

I also agree.... I don't get the whining about transponders.

"Casual" carpoolers is a stupid description... people don't spontaneously decide to carpool by the freeway on ramp. These are really infrequent carpoolers. Some of them will get wise and get a transponder once they see that it is a requirement. And the rest wouldn't care either way because they only carpool occasionally.

[jamesinclair]

Nov 16, 2012 11:10:43 GMT -8 bzcat said:

I also agree.... I don't get the whining about transponders.

"Casual" carpoolers is a stupid description... people don't spontaneously decide to carpool by the freeway on ramp. These are really infrequent carpoolers. Some of them will get wise and get a transponder once they see that it is a requirement. And the rest wouldn't care either way because they only carpool occasionally.

How many thousands, if not tens of thousands of cars make their waya cross LA to disney every day?

Those cars are usually filled to the brim.

Now theyve been kicked off the carpool lane.

How many drive to LAX every day? Casual carpoolers, banished.

How many come into LA as a family or group of friends for events, concerts, sports and more?

No car pool lanes for them.

The bay area lets you carpool in HOT lanes without a transponder, why can't LA?

[nickv]

Several individuals have asked why the Transit Coalition objects to FasTrak mandates for HOV's in the Metro ExpressLanes and the proposed toll lane extensions in the Inland Empire.

It's because of this: If major urban centers like LA had a HOT lane system for all of its major highways which required transponder preregistration, then more toll paying solo vehicles would use the express lanes than they would with a facility with non-transponder carpooling. More registered SOV's would occupy the extra HOT lane space left behind by the non-registered HOV's to rebalance the traffic flow between the HOT and regular lanes. The literal meaning of a "high occupacy" lane is thus weakend. No transit advocate would want that.



HOT lanes should be designated for any HOV and if capacity fills up or speeds drop below 45 mph, no toll paying SOV should be allowed to enter until speeds pick back up (Metro did adopt the 45 mph minimum rule for SOV's).

Legitimate HOV patrons--Private bus carriers, airport shuttles, out-of-area carpoolers, taxis, a private vanpool of small business owners from Fountain Valley headed to an annual convention in Downtown LA--they cannot use the Metro ExpressLanes unless they preregister with Metro. Not everybody is going to pony up and sign up for the switchable Metro ExpressLane FasTrak for a variety of valid reasons. If a private LAX airport shuttle company, for instance, did register its entire vehicle fleet, the extra overhead and internal costs of maintaining the FasTrak account and each of the registered vehicles would mean higher fares for its customers. Same holds true if one of its shuttles is stuck in traffic along the I-110 instead of productively using the HOT lanes. The FasTrak mandate thus makes it harder for commercial HOV's to compete in the marketplace.

The same holds true for casual HOV's and private sector buses; in Riverside County, the Coalition has observed several of these HOV patrons and full private coaches (including Greyhound buses) are stuck in the main lanes instead of using the 91 Express Lanes along the SR-91 Corridor in Anaheim Hills.



With the extra HOV traffic out of the express lanes (very evident along SR-91), the resulting space is "sold" to registered single occupancy cars, thus promoting a system that benefits registered toll paying SOV's instead of non-registered HOV's and creating a "Lexus Lane" appearance for the corridor; the Transit Coalition clearly doesn't want that. UC Berkeley did a study on this earlier this year.



San Diego, Santa Clara, Alameda, and Utah counties along with Denver, Minneapolis, and Seattle have HOT lanes, and the local entities were smart in not mandating its HOV traffic to use a transponder. In these regions, if a cop catches a non-transponder SOV in the HOT lanes, the driver is issued a heavy carpool violation fine in lieu of a $25 automated violation notice. TTC wants to see this notion adopted for the rest of Southern California's HOT lanes. The irony behind all of this is that Metro does desire to see more HOV's than SOV's use the Metro ExpressLanes.

[bzcat]

Thanks for explaining the position. I wonder if mandatory transponder is a requirement for the Federal funds? The 91 Toll Road requires transponder for carpool and I think that may have set a precedent for Southern California. I'm not saying that is right or wrong but I think consistent application of transponder rule is probably a good thing.

[masonite]

Nov 21, 2012 11:17:56 GMT -8 bzcat said:

Thanks for explaining the position. I wonder if mandatory transponder is a requirement for the Federal funds? The 91 Toll Road requires transponder for carpool and I think that may have set a precedent for Southern California. I'm not saying that is right or wrong but I think consistent application of transponder rule is probably a good thing.

I really think the transponder is for enforcement. That is what Metro says and I can certainly see it. The CHP probably catches far less than 1% of carpoolers by driving around and trying to see someone who doesn't have passengers. Of course, it is probably pretty easy for someone to just flip the transponder to 2 or 3 people even though they are solo. Maybe there are cameras to enforce this. Unfortunately, people are always trying to cheat the system.

[jamesinclair]

Thats the other problem, the current system requires just as much enforcement as a system where carpoolers DONT need a transponder, as any single user could flip the +2 switch.

[mattapoisett]

Nov 23, 2012 21:49:31 GMT -8 jamesinclair said:

Thats the other problem, the current system requires just as much enforcement as a system where carpoolers DONT need a transponder, as any single user could flip the +2 switch.

I think they can do enforcement with the transponders much more efficiently. If someone has a transponder and is gaming the system, the cameras should catch it. Then Metro has an account to track down the driver, pull fees and possibly fines from. Whereas tracking down the person behind a license plate is much harder than this.

[nickv]

Enforcing Non-Transponder Carpooling in the HOT Lanes



One of the main reasons why a transportation agency would decide to mandate all vehicles traveling in their respective HOT lanes to have a FasTrak transponder is the ability of the agency to have an automated photo enforcement system. To be clear, the successful operation of a HOT lane facility must be dependent upon a visible and effective enforcement program that the public perceives as fair and consistent according to a 2007 federal report and a 2011 Policy Study by the Reason Foundation. Los Angeles Metro adopted this notion for the I-110 and I-10 Metro ExpressLanes and the Riverside County Transportation Commission plans to do likewise for the HOT lane proposals for SR-91 and I-15.

Sound enforcement in HOT lanes is imperative, no question. However when preregistration mandates begin to sap free mobility and deincentivize private and commercial ridesharing through the creation of a HOT lane nanny, the Transit Coalition will confront it. Transponder-only "Nanny Lanes" weaken free HOV mobility; they expand unnecessary government control and worsen traffic in the main freeway lanes. HOT lanes need to operate on an honor system with non-transponder carpooling.



How can LA Metro, OCTA, and RCTC watch over their HOT lanes under the honor system? Agencies should task the CHP to patrol the HOT lane toll antenna areas. If a solo vehicle enters a HOT facility, does not have a valid FasTrak transponder mounted at all times and is caught by a police officer, the driver is issued a heavy $401 carpool violation ticket plus the maximum posted toll amount in lieu of a $25 automated fine. Officials should also equip the CHP with mobile enforcement transponders, enforcement beacons and other fool-proof tools; that's how San Diego, Minneapolis, and Washington State toll lanes are enforced. If internal statistics or complaints show a violation ratio of over 5%, get the CHP's to patrol the facility more often. Segments or corridors with a 10%+ violation ratio should warrant a full police sting operation like this one in San Francisco with news media coverage to get cheaters out of the HOT lanes; each and every ticket issued carrying a $401 fine plus the maximum toll.



Reports also question the reliability of an automated photo enforcement system; OCTA reported that a whopping 60% of automated violation notices from the 91 Express Lanes are dismissed (only 11% pay up, 20% go to collections, 9% not reported). To be fair, an undetermined percentage of the dismissed violations may have been applied toward prepaid tolls under new FasTrak accounts.



Federal reports and studies confirm that establishing contracts with the CHP and local law enforcement is the most effective and practical means of monitoring non-transponder HOV vehichles and to ensure all toll paying transponder-equipped solo vehicles have a valid transponder account with the FasTrak mounted at all times while in the HOT lanes. Having a strong enforcement presence is key to deterring violations and maintaining the integrity of HOT lane operations. Officials should work with local law enforcement in lieu of mandated FasTrak registration for carpools. Public officials must know that if transportation agencies continue to build up a nanny-lane system, many carpools will eventually stop ridesharing and several commercial HOV's and private buses will see unnecessary layers of extra costs which get paid by the rider.

Source Article - ABIE: We Want Toll Lanes Done Right

[ieko]

Nov 26, 2012 21:43:37 GMT -8 nickv said:

Enforcing Non-Transponder Carpooling in the HOT Lanes



One of the main reasons why a transportation agency would decide to mandate all vehicles traveling in their respective HOT lanes to have a FasTrak transponder is the ability of the agency to have an automated photo enforcement system. To be clear, the successful operation of a HOT lane facility must be dependent upon a visible and effective enforcement program that the public perceives as fair and consistent according to a 2007 federal report and a 2011 Policy Study by the Reason Foundation. Los Angeles Metro adopted this notion for the I-110 and I-10 Metro ExpressLanes and the Riverside County Transportation Commission plans to do likewise for the HOT lane proposals for SR-91 and I-15.

Sound enforcement in HOT lanes is imperative, no question. However when preregistration mandates begin to sap free mobility and deincentivize private and commercial ridesharing through the creation of a HOT lane nanny, the Transit Coalition will confront it. Transponder-only "Nanny Lanes" weaken free HOV mobility; they expand unnecessary government control and worsen traffic in the main freeway lanes. HOT lanes need to operate on an honor system with non-transponder carpooling.



How can LA Metro, OCTA, and RCTC watch over their HOT lanes under the honor system? Agencies should task the CHP to patrol the HOT lane toll antenna areas. If a solo vehicle enters a HOT facility, does not have a valid FasTrak transponder mounted at all times and is caught by a police officer, the driver is issued a heavy $401 carpool violation ticket plus the maximum posted toll amount in lieu of a $25 automated fine. Officials should also equip the CHP with mobile enforcement transponders, enforcement beacons and other fool-proof tools; that's how San Diego, Minneapolis, and Washington State toll lanes are enforced. If internal statistics or complaints show a violation ratio of over 5%, get the CHP's to patrol the facility more often. Segments or corridors with a 10%+ violation ratio should warrant a full police sting operation like this one in San Francisco with news media coverage to get cheaters out of the HOT lanes; each and every ticket issued carrying a $401 fine plus the maximum toll.



Reports also question the reliability of an automated photo enforcement system; OCTA reported that a whopping 60% of automated violation notices from the 91 Express Lanes are dismissed (only 11% pay up, 20% go to collections, 9% not reported). To be fair, an undetermined percentage of the dismissed violations may have been applied toward prepaid tolls under new FasTrak accounts.



Federal reports and studies confirm that establishing contracts with the CHP and local law enforcement is the most effective and practical means of monitoring non-transponder HOV vehichles and to ensure all toll paying transponder-equipped solo vehicles have a valid transponder account with the FasTrak mounted at all times while in the HOT lanes. Having a strong enforcement presence is key to deterring violations and maintaining the integrity of HOT lane operations. Officials should work with local law enforcement in lieu of mandated FasTrak registration for carpools. Public officials must know that if transportation agencies continue to build up a nanny-lane system, many carpools will eventually stop ridesharing and several commercial HOV's and private buses will see unnecessary layers of extra costs which get paid by the rider.

Source Article - ABIE: We Want Toll Lanes Done Right

You're over thinking this, HOV lanes are really underutilized, tolling the lanes is just a way to put that underutilized capacity on the market. Requiring a transponder is a better way to go about this because it simplifies the rules, and it makes it so that we don't have to have toll booths. So, the automated tolls allow us to increase efficiency of operations which allow us the generate the maximum amount of income and therefore allow us to get more monies for transit in the corridor. Not a bad deal I'd say. I actually use the lane a lot via car and silver line and I'm happy it's there.